Of course "we" can give the guy a second chance but, seeing as he took advantage of the flaws in "our" system it is only fair that he reveals the flaws in his.

as some people have realised we dont all live in fantasy world...this community is not built on 100 percent trust..look how nokia shafted maemo 5. he exploited a bug on here hence why other measures have been brought in. its the real world not maemo fantasy island..these are hard economic times in a dog eat dog world...

now back to my real world of wifey and kidsL

I admit I missed that. but you have to admit that there was a lot justifying etc around it that pretty much blew the whole apology unvalid.

how old are you??? you seem to be acting like my 15yr old child.

Send me your bank account number and password to access the funds necessary to feed my family, they are quite fat by the way, and I will create such an app.

51, and you?

There are 2 things at play here;

1. Winning the support of the community.
2. Dealing with the system: fixing it, etc

Just like religions are separate from the state, I believe getting community support is optional in a system like this. (Although it's highly beneficial to have it).

Am I mistaken?

there we go again

I'll second the idea that the council should be issue a statement on this. It seems that perhaps this is one of the things that they should have a hand in.

I'm waiting patiently to buy Rovio's Angry Birds level pack(s). I want to encourage more folks to develop for the platform (and show that it can be profitable). I want to encourage "good" developers, ones who follow the rules, whether set by Nokia or the community depending on where/how the software is being distributed.

However, even if the community decides to give SiO2 a second chance, I won't be installing any of his software. He violated not only our (community) trust but Nokia's (enabling Extras by default based on the community effort), and all the other people who bought a N900, but don't participate in our community. Those people expect that software in the Extras repository (enabled by default) is "safe", and they should. By knowingly and intentionally cheating the QA process SiO2 has not only harmed his own reputation, but the communities reputation as well. We have ony his word at this point that his software is "safe", and he has shown himself to be of questionable morals.

Because uploading to Extras is a privilege, not a right, and comes with certain rules. You are free to debate them and try to get them changed, host your own repository elsewhere, or even just throw your toys out of the pram but you don't get to break them just because you find them inconvenient.

The sad thing is that a simple "packages in extras-testing, please vote" announcement would have probably got the packages promoted in the same time anyway...